Klarinet Archive - Posting 001114.txt from 1998/04

From: Roger Garrett <rgarrett@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: JC's Posting on Logic
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:16:21 -0400

Jonathan states that the debate for the NSO started on the following
premise:

"It is fundamentally unfair to exclude candidates from first-round
auditions of full-time orchestras in the U.S. based soley on a resume. In
other words, if a person sends in a resume, pays whatever the application
fee is, and shows up, he/she should be allowed to audition."

I have searched his initial posting (refer to bottom of this very long
post), which was the one responsible for the "debate" in question, and I
don't find such words there! I find no mention of an application fee, I
find no mention of of the arguement using the words "first-round
auditions", and as I read it several times, I still interpret the original
post as one that presents what happened to his student as unfair....and
then asks what other people feel about "this exclusionary practice..."

The "logic" is that people responded to what appeared to be a teacher
angry that his student was not considered, that the person became upset at
the personnel manager, and that not everyone agrees that the practice is
a bad one.

Jonathan states, "This country (and most industrialized countries) have
many laws to ensure 'fair' hiring practices." But, he doesn't explain why
he wrote that......leaving interpretation to us - and, perhaps invite a
response. Such a response could leave a person open to another, "that
isn't the issue" or "I didn't say that" or "untrue....." but there was not
enough in the sentence above to actually tell us what Jonathan meant. We
must, therefore, look at the information around it to see the CONTENT of
Jonathan 's dramatic statement so that we can try to deduce what he was
implying. The obvious implication is that Jonathan feels that the NSO is
in violation of fair hiring practices......but, since he doesn't actually
say as much, it is really hard to know what he means. Is anyone willing
to wreak more anger by assuming as much?

A single person in a position of authority wrote regarding his orchestras
hiring practice. Jonathan has stated that such a statement represents
"empirical coroboation" of Jonathan's "financial anaylsis". I hope
members of the list don't allow themselves to be intimidated by this kind
of approach to logic. It is neither acceptable nor prudent to base an
entire argument on a single piece of evidence or on assumed financial
discussion. Would you base your tax return on the financial analysis
provided by someone who was deducing or throwing out figures as nationally
based facts?

Jonathan states:

"So, if it's good enough for Brazil, and it's good enough for Canada, and
it's good enough for the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, and there is no
financial impediment to doing it, then why don't we make it a reality here
in the U.S.?"

A good answer would be that 1) there is not proof that it is not a
financial impediment for all major orchestras.....no proof nationally has
been presented; 2) What is good for the DSO is not necessarily good for
other orchestras (although I like the DSO's hiring practice as described
by Larry Liberson); 3) Brazil and Canada are not countries that are run
the same as our's, nor are the symphony orchestras in each made up of the
caliber of players as the United States' best orchestras. It is possible
that orchestras here in the US, working in tandem with US laws and US
culture, and US customs, feel this approach helps them identify the best
players for their orchestras. Is that fair? If the NSO hasn't broken any
laws, then those are, perhaps, what Jonathan should be focusing on....not
everyone's opinion of what "fair" is.

Jonathan asks, "Or is there a big unseen resistance to this movement
coming from the 'old boys club' (be it the Curtis faction, or any
other!)?" Since there is no way to really answer this question, we must
believe it was meant as a rhetorical question rather than one meant to
support any kind of statement.

Finally, while it was earlier in his post (I have changed the order of the
statements for this one point), Jonathon states that "The question of how
to choose the best player is an issue of concern to the orchestra.
Whereas, the quesion of ensuring a fair process is of concern to the
players auditioning." He sates that, "The issue of how to choose the
'best player for the job' is a completely separate question from the
premise I offered." I have reread the post below several times, and, in
it's own context, Jonathan's statement above is not accurate. Perhaps in
the context of his later posts when he began to shift away from his
reactionary state of mind (as indicated by the post below) to focusing on
just the issue of hiring practices and if they should or should not be
based on a resume, etc.......the argument would be more credible.

I only point these things out because they are important in understanding
why there have been so many conflicting opinions that often appear to be
"....a rambling, conglomeration of often unrelated facts and opinions."
However, based on the original post, which was not as specific as Jonathan
would like us to believe that it is, the facts and opinions presented
by many were based on specific comments made at different times by many
people. The definition of such is called a "thread." No one can be
blamed for presenting opinions and facts that appear to be unrelated and
rambling when the original post seemed to be such a conglomroation of
emotional distress and anger with a quick question that asked, "I also
wonder how others feel about this exclusionary practice of the National
Symphony Orchestra."

The bottom line is that, based on what many consider to be standard
practice, backed by our laws, many of us do not necessarily agree that
such an exclusionary practice is wrong for the NSO.....and that is what we
were trying to say. Some were trying to post reasons as to why such
practices exist...I am assuming to help Jonathan understand it better.
But we were operating on an assumption that he wanted to know WHY it
exists....not if he wanted to know if we thought it was fair. He didn't
ask if we thought it was fair, legal, or anything else. He simply asked
what we thought about it. Therefore, I submit that the responses were
entirely logical and related. If more specific answers were needed, a
more specific question should have been asked.

Roger Garrett
IWU

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Jonathan Cohler wrote:

> I just had a very disconcerting conversation with an arrogant personnel
> manager at the National Symphony by the name of David Bragunier.
>
> One of my top students had sent in her resume and application to audition
> for the 2nd clarinet job there. She was sent an impersonal form letter
> telling her that based on a glance at her resume, she wasn't good enough to
> come and audition!!!!
>
> I called Mr. Bragunier to inform him that she had won prizes at least two
> major international clarinet competitions (including the ICA Competition!).
> I also asked why they were limiting the number of auditionees arbitrarily.
> He exclaimed that they had 200 applicants, and I said "so what!"
>
> If people can't audition for jobs, and are going to be excluded arbitrarily
> based on what a paper resume says, then the system will be inherantly
> unfair and biased. Furthermore, it encourages (and essentially guarantees)
> that the vast majority of applicants will lie on their resumes in order to
> ensure themselves an audition spot.
>
> I am well aware that this is precisely what happens in the world of
> conductors where the number of audition slots is necessarily very limited.
> But I have never heard of a major orchestra limiting the audition pool so
> dramatically.
>
> If there are other major orchestras doing this, it is just another
> unfortunate sign of the decline of classical music.
>
> There is absolutely no reason that a major orchestra cannot afford to
> listen to 200 applicants for a position in the orchestra (especially a
> wind, brass or percussion position). If each auditionee gets 7 minutes,
> that would be 1400 minutes or roughly 24 hours of audition time for round
> one. Considering that the people who get these jobs often stay in the
> orchestra for 5, 10 or more years, the orchestra should be obliged to spend
> at least 24 hours looking for the best possible candidate.
>
> To do any less is a disservice to the world of classical music and National
> Symphony should be ashamed of themselves.
>
> I left a message with Mr. Bragunier to have Loren Kitt call me back about
> this subject, although Mr. Bragunier didn't seem to be in a very helpful
> mood.
>
> If Loren is on this list, or somebody knows him, I would love to hear from you.
>
> I also wonder how others feel about this exclusionary practice of the
> National Symphony Orchestra.
>
> I also wonder how Stanley Drucker would have felt if he was told he
> couldn't audition for the New York Philharmonic when he was 19, because his
> resume didn't show enough experience. Or how about John Bruce Yeh when he
> was 19 and auditioning for the Chicago Symphony. Or....
>
> -------------------------
> Jonathan Cohler
> cohler@-----.net
>
>
>
>